|
Obdicut posted:It's not "Franco is better than Hitler". It's pretty much "Abraham Lincoln was better than Andrew Jackson". While this is all true, the problem with this argument is that the police themselves are guardians *of* the system. The problem is cyclic and saying "it isn't the cops fault" isn't any more honest than saying "all cops are evil". The system protects itself from popular dissent by using their private armed security force to shut down protest and unpopular opinion. If the call came in to riot-suit up and tear gas a crowd of nonviolent protesters and the entire PD said "gently caress this, we're standing aside unless there is violence" the system would change really loving quickly. The police are complicit in this, even though you're correct that simply replacing them wouldn't fix the problem.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:If the call came in to riot-suit up and tear gas a crowd of nonviolent protesters and the entire PD said "gently caress this, we're standing aside unless there is violence" the system would change really loving quickly. What people don't get is that voters love this poo poo. Joe Arpaio hasn't been Sheriff for 20 years because he has sorcerous powers. His constituents fuckin' love profiling, heavy-handed violence, brutal jails and tanks. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:More likely they'd all be fired, the Chief/Sheriff would be sacked and someone "tough on crime" would take his place. It's been my experience that people love a police state until they become the target. The people in my city call the cops to report all sorts of poo poo like people being transients and walking through a neighborhood to having out of state plates and driving through town, but they would flip poo poo if it was them being called in. I think the best example of police not loving with protestors was the union busting protests in Madison, WI in 2011. From what I remember Madison PD just said nope and protested with the people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Cuntpunch posted:While this is all true, the problem with this argument is that the police themselves are guardians *of* the system. The problem is cyclic and saying "it isn't the cops fault" isn't any more honest than saying "all cops are evil". I don't know what 'guardians of the system' means. quote:The system protects itself from popular dissent by using their private armed security force to shut down protest and unpopular opinion. There is a huge amount of popular dissent tolerated in the US, especially of the kind that actually changes things politically. quote:If the call came in to riot-suit up and tear gas a crowd of nonviolent protesters and the entire PD said "gently caress this, we're standing aside unless there is violence" the system would change really loving quickly. Why do you believe this? You really think that if the cops hadn't dispersed Occupy that things would have actually changed in this country? First of all, they'd probably get fired. Second, they'd get sued by anyone who's property got damaged by the people they weren't arresting. Third, there are plenty of non-violent protests that don't get tear-gassed and riot-squadded and they don't magically change things. Fourth, the civil rights movement got teargassed, beaten, attacked by dogs, murdered, etc. and still changed things. I don't think your thesis has an ounce of weight to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Things Aren't Magical: The Case for Inaction by Obdicut
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Things Aren't Magical: The Case for Inaction Except I called for action, which is really obvious. Can you point out where I made any case for inaction? What that I said could be called a call for inaction? Please quote it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Except I called for action, which is really obvious. Obdicut posted:Fixing that is not doable by reforming police departments. If we threw out every policeman overnight and replaced them all with lots of oversight et al., we'd still have prosecutors leaning on them to produce, we'd still have the societal expectation of cops as people who's purpose is to arrest criminals, etc. The problems are systemic, they do not lie with the police, and police are necessary in any society. I know that after this paragraph you vaguely called for looking at what good police departments do and somehow applying it to other departments, but this really stands by itself as a monument to "don't blame cops." Some problems do lie with the police, like the choice when to discriminate. As I mentioned last time in my response to you, and as you did not refer to again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Except I called for action, which is really obvious. The action you called for is for police departments to emulate a department which is frequently sued for excessive force and refuses to discipline an officer with 9 incidents of abusing his power on the record, because your friends work there and surely no one who drinks a beer with you can be a bad man. Like everything, note the systemic problem -- how many people have to approve of this behavior to protect the 9-lawsuit cop? The entire command structure, basically. You don't seem to realize (and in fact explicitly denied!) that every police department can produce some person who will vouch for some officer being a good guy, and it means nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Second, they'd get sued by anyone who's property got damaged by the people they weren't arresting. I thought the cops in America didn't actually have the duty to protect people or their property at all. Like there was a big ruling about it and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:The action you called for is for police departments to emulate a department which is frequently sued for excessive force and refuses to discipline an officer with 9 incidents of abusing his power on the record, because your friends work there and surely no one who drinks a beer with you can be a bad man. I'm saying, yes, that the worse police departments should emulate the better ones, even if the better ones are still far less than ideal. I don't, of course, think that nobody who drinks beer with me could be a bad person. quote:You don't seem to realize (and in fact explicitly denied!) that every police department can produce some person who will vouch for some officer being a good guy, and it means nothing. I do explicitly deny it. There are some cops who don't have any friends. I'm not sure why you find this really hard to believe. You're just refusing to engage with my actual point, so there's not really anything to be gained from talking with you. I completely support reformation of the justice system, I completely support restricting police powers much more than they currently are restricted and restoring 4th amendment rights that have been eroded. I think that the police are in most places in an antagonistic relationship with average people, and outright hostile relationships with most minorities. We're not going to change that by just talking about how cops are scum and they're all equally bad and all police departments are equally bad. SedanChair posted:I know that after this paragraph you vaguely called for looking at what good police departments do and somehow applying it to other departments, but this really stands by itself as a monument to "don't blame cops." Part of the blame goes on cops. I'm not sure what assigning blame really gets us. But if you completely vaporized every existing cop and hired a new bunch, eventually you would wind up with the same circumstance because we would have the same justice system and the same legal framework. This is pretty much like how even if we busted every drug dealer in the US we'd have them replaced quickly. Is there something you're having trouble with in understanding this? You completely didn't show where I called for inaction, by the way. At all. Because I didn't. quote:Some problems do lie with the police, like the choice when to discriminate. As I mentioned last time in my response to you, and as you did not refer to again. Do you really think that the discrimination towards blacks just comes from cops themselves and not any structural or societal reasons? That cops are assigned equally between black and white neighborhoods? I'm mainly not interested in laying down blame. I'm not into laying down blame for criminals, either. It seems completely pointless to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Well, at least you had a paragraph break between "what's the point of assigning blame" and "You completely didn't show where I called for inaction" I guess. At least you mentally take a breath before you contradict yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, at least you had a paragraph break between "what's the point of assigning blame" and "You completely didn't show where I called for inaction" I guess. At least you mentally take a breath before you contradict yourself. What is the contradiction between those two sentences?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What is the contradiction between those two sentences? He's saying that placing blame is required for action. The idea that if you don't find what is to blame, or who is to blame, for cops being corrupt assholes, means if you change things you might miss whats causing the corruption or abuses of power in the first place. He's also saying that cops refuse to place blame on their corrupt brethren because they've been taught that snitches get stitches, or shot in the back during a routine traffic stop. The idea of reporting your fellows is basically 'if I do this, and nothing comes of it, am I going to have him refuse to save my rear end if I'm in trouble?' along with a healthy helping of 'He's a cop, he's trained, I'm sure that it's just a civilian being a whiny bitch and trying to get him in trouble' and even more of 'There but for the grace of god go I'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:He's saying that placing blame is required for action. The idea that if you don't find what is to blame, or who is to blame, for cops being corrupt assholes, means if you change things you might miss whats causing the corruption or abuses of power in the first place. Well, that's pretty much what I'm saying, though. I'm saying that the whole system needs reform, and that the way that cops are is mostly an output of that system, not something that cops came up with themselves. So that, while you can 'blame' them somewhat, or in the way that I'd say, they're responsible for some of the ills of the system, the majority of the reasons that poo poo is hosed with the police is not because of the police, but because of the system of laws we have in place, the political nature of prosecutors, and our societal attitude towards crime and justice in general. quote:He's also saying that cops refuse to place blame on their corrupt brethren because they've been taught that snitches get stitches, or shot in the back during a routine traffic stop. The idea of reporting your fellows is basically 'if I do this, and nothing comes of it, am I going to have him refuse to save my rear end if I'm in trouble?' along with a healthy helping of 'He's a cop, he's trained, I'm sure that it's just a civilian being a whiny bitch and trying to get him in trouble' and even more of 'There but for the grace of god go I'. And I'm saying the amount this is true varies between police departments, and that some corrupt police do get turned in by their brethren, and that that also happens more in some places than another. I'm also saying the amount of general corruption, abuse of power, etc. differs between departments. If we want to reduce the corruption and abuse of power, why on earth is there any objection to looking at the police forces that have less corruption and abuses of power?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
How does one measure corruption in a police department anyway? I bet so much of it happens in one-on-one interactions between the police and the public, and not in recorded ways like arrests and stuff. For example, a cop here in Honolulu was recently caught recommending a store owner hire a private security guy who happens to be his friend. Who knows what other secret deals are made between the police and the public when no one else is watching? Do we know for sure that the supposed low corruption police departments aren't just better at keeping it outside of the office and off the records?
Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:How does one measure corruption in a police department anyway? So much of it happens in one-on-one interactions between the police and the public, and not in recorded ways like arrests and stuff. For example, a cop here in Honolulu was recently caught recommending a store owner make use of a private security guy who happens to be his friend. Do we know for sure that there are low corruption police departments aren't just better at keeping it outside of the office and off the records? Like anything else, it's a challenge. However, anonymous surveys are pretty good at revealing behavior if they're worded correctly. You don't ask "Are you corrupt", but "Can you do your job while following all the rules of that job" etc. I mean, we're citing polls earlier about cops covering for each other--that sort of survey. "Corruption" would be hard to operationalize. Are cops who take bribes more or less corrupt than cops who beat up suspects and imprison them? Etc. And very basic point that not all police departments are equally corrupt or equally draconian or whatever has got to be accepted as just simple logic, right? As above, my friends joined the police department they did because of its reputation for being clean-cut. Others joined for the same reason. Why wouldn't a police department staffed by cops who actively want to be clean not be cleaner than the cops who are signing up for jobs at police departments with large, visible corruption in them? This is a thread for talking about police reform. The idea that to reform the police we'd have to reform a lot more than the police really can't be that shocking, can it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:cops refuse to place blame on their corrupt brethren because they've been taught that snitches get stitches, or shot in the back during a routine traffic stop. The idea of reporting your fellows is basically 'if I do this, and nothing comes of it, am I going to have him refuse to save my rear end if I'm in trouble?' What I don't get is that this basically means that "bad cops" are a serious danger to work with, if you're a good cop, or even a cop who isn't actively a criminal psychopath. If you walk in on a bad cop doing something bad, and then you don't jump to help him, you could lose your life. Sounds like a serious liability even if it's only your own safety you're worried about. Bad cops are protected by the thin blue line, but they're not upholding it themselves if they'll literally murder a fellow cop for doing something they don't like. They're abusing the "brotherhood" of cops as much as they're abusing the public. Why are these guys not seen as dangerous parasites on the force, if they're truly the anomalies? Why wouldn't "good cops" support any and all measures to get these guys the hell out of there? Instead of every time such measures are brought up, palavering about a few bad apples and "I hate them too because they make all cops look bad" so let's not do anything about it. A cop-killer is the worst kind of scum there is. Unless the cop-killer is also a cop. Thin blue line forever. Cichlid the Loach fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jul 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is a thread for talking about police reform. The idea that to reform the police we'd have to reform a lot more than the police really can't be that shocking, can it? It's a dodge. Holding police accountable when they commit crimes is important. It's more important than when non-police commit crimes. It requires assigning blame, as uncomfortable as that seems to make you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Holding police accountable when they commit crimes is important. I agree. So how do we go about doing that? It involves, as I said, looking at the whole structure, and not just the police. quote:
It depends who the non-police person is whether or not it's more important. I think, for example, that holding a bank responsible for foreclosing illegally on thousands of houses, and holding the executives that made that decision, is more important than holding a cop responsible for taking a bribe. Assigning blame doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, it just seems pointless. Saying that, for example, some sixteen year old drug dealer who shot another sixteen year old drug dealer is to blame for doing that is pointless, because the reason that scenario occurs isn't because that sixteen year old set out to live that life but because of sociological circumstances that led to that path. Blaming him gets us nowhere. Trying to fix the fundamental problems in the situation does. In this thread, about police reform, I am trying to talk about police reform. What do you think can be done to reform police that does not involve also changing other aspects of the legal and political structure?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:How does one measure corruption in a police department anyway? By how many anonymous, unverifiable posters on an Internet forum claim to be friends with the members of the department, of course. It's very quantitative. Science.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:By how many anonymous, unverifiable posters on an Internet forum claim to be friends with the members of the department, of course. It's very quantitative. Science. I'm not actually making the claim that New Haven is less corrupt. I'm saying there's reason to believe it is, because it has that reputation among police officers, and that cops go there specifically because of that reason. But moreover, even if you think New Haven, for whatever reason, is actually a very bad cop department, then do you think that there are no police departments that are significantly different from others on corruption? Both more, and less?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Fixing that is not doable by reforming police departments. If we threw out every policeman overnight and replaced them all with lots of oversight et al., we'd still have prosecutors leaning on them to produce, we'd still have the societal expectation of cops as people who's purpose is to arrest criminals, etc. The problems are systemic, they do not lie with the police, and police are necessary in any society. Apparently it worked great because, surprise, the police were the problem, not the citizens. So maybe stripping departments in the US of all the wannabe soldiers is a good idea. ryonguy fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Hey whadya know, that's literally what they did in Georgia: Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jul 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Wow. What the hell happens to 30,000 suddenly out of work traffic cops, anyway? They did okay because they were still fat from all the bribes and that's not a joke I just wrote, it's literally what the president of Georgia says about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
ryonguy posted:Hey whadya know, that's literally what they did in Georgia: In what way did it work great? Is police corruption not a problem in Georgia now, thanks to firing all the traffic cops? Just to get it straight, are you saying to fire all the cops and then hire new people who want to be cops, or just, like, have no cops at all? Do you get my point about the role that prosecutors, politicians, and really the expectations that our society has of police? Changing the police department without changing the reasons that police departments have gotten to that state is, at best, a short-term solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
You seem to be under the impression that the police would be a just, noble force if they weren't pressured to be otherwise. This isn't the case. It just so happens that people who get a kick out of power over other people, the jocks, bullies and sociopaths, tend to flock to jobs where that behaviour is not only acceptable but encouraged through systemic whitewashing of abuse of power and low accountability. It's one of those cases where those who desire the job should probably not be given it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:You seem to be under the impression that the police would be a just, noble force if they weren't pressured to be otherwise. This isn't the case. It just so happens that people who get a kick out of power over other people, the jocks, bullies and sociopaths, tend to flock to jobs where that behaviour is not only acceptable but encouraged through systemic whitewashing of abuse of power and low accountability. I don't agree with your characterization above. There's lots and lots of jobs where you have 'power' over other people. Cops have power, but they also are in a regimented system where they get ordered around and told what to do. There are police officers who sign up out of a genuine desire to do good. There are police officers who are normal people and sign up and will go along with whatever culture is mainstream there. There are also shitbirds and assholes who sign up, sadists and thugs. If you don't think it's possible to have a police force that excludes the thugs and the shitbirds--and again, I'm saying this has to come from a larger change to our justice and legal system, and really a change in our culture and the bizarre way we look at crime in this country, then what is the alternative? I guess I should say is I'm only interested in blame in so far as it gets us to a solution. Let's say for the sake of argument that sociopaths, bullies, and 'jocks' are the ones who sign up to be cops. Therefore, to fix this problem, what do you suggest?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Cops have power, but they also are in a regimented system where they get ordered around and told what to do. So does the military, war crimes do not happen and should not be prosecuted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Cops refuse to enforce laws they don't like all the time -- look at how often cops assigned to protect gay pride marches end up assaulting the marchers. You can't plead "just following orders" when you don't, its rank immorality and total absence from the actual legal system aside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Just to get it straight, are you saying to fire all the cops and then hire new people who want to be cops, or just, like, have no cops at all? One of the reasons I'm so worked up about police abuse is that I believe very strongly that police and the rule of law are essential to a society that protects people's civil rights, and I'm utterly disillusioned by how completely our actual-police subverts the principles of theoretical-police. Not only does our police abuse its power to victimize untold numbers of people and leave them with no recourse, it leaves a gap where a real protector of the peace should be. It's terrifying. What I would like to see is pretty much the entire police apparatus in the U.S. razed and then rebuilt from the ground up with a culture of accountability. So no. Not no cops at all. Obdicut posted:If you don't think it's possible to have a police force that excludes the thugs and the shitbirds--and again, I'm saying this has to come from a larger change to our justice and legal system, and really a change in our culture and the bizarre way we look at crime in this country, then what is the alternative? I don't see where anyone here has said anything like that. It's not impossible at all to exclude the thugs. What they're attracted to is a combination of the power of the job, and the culture that allows them to get away with abusing it. If the culture said, "You do this and we will nail you to the wall," that would change. The justice and legal system are their own separate issues. But there's plenty of police abuse independent of that. Take something like civil asset forfeiture. This kind of use was never envisioned when these laws were written a couple hundred years ago for dealing with high-seas piracy. Asset forfeiture isn't driven by lawmakers or prosecutors; they don't get anything out of it because there aren't even any prosecutions. It's just police departments abusing a law to enrich themselves. The problem is there aren't comprehensive enough checks on police power. Which is another thing I just don't get. Our whole founding philosophy in the U.S. was that checks and balances on the government are necessary because if power accrues anywhere unchecked, abuses WILL occur. Like a law of nature. Fundamentally, abuses of power occur, and the machinery of government must be designed to choke off opportunities for it and actively resist it. But when it comes to police, the feeling seems to be that abuses fundamentally don't occur. Not really. Yeah we don't really enforce against them but our boys just don't do that kind of stuff. Benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:So does the military, war crimes do not happen and should not be prosecuted. War crimes happen, and should be prosecuted. Cichlid the Loach posted:One of the reasons I'm so worked up about police abuse is that I believe very strongly that police and the rule of law are essential to a society that protects people's civil rights, and I'm utterly disillusioned by how completely our actual-police subverts the principles of theoretical-police. Not only does our police abuse its power to victimize untold numbers of people and leave them with no recourse, it leaves a gap where a real protector of the peace should be. It's terrifying. What does this realistically, practically mean? How would the new culture of accountability take shape? Please note I'm not saying that idea is bad--it's basically what I want. But how do you do that, and do you agree that we need to reform the rest of the justice system in order to really reform cops? quote:I don't see where anyone here has said anything like that. It's not impossible at all to exclude the thugs. What they're attracted to is a combination of the power of the job, and the culture that allows them to get away with abusing it. If the culture said, "You do this and we will nail you to the wall," that would change. And how do we get that culture? quote:The justice and legal system are their own separate issues. But there's plenty of police abuse independent of that. Take something like civil asset forfeiture. This kind of use was never envisioned when these laws were written a couple hundred years ago for dealing with high-seas piracy. Asset forfeiture isn't driven by lawmakers or prosecutors; they don't get anything out of it because there aren't even any prosecutions. It's just police departments abusing a law to enrich themselves. I don't agree that the justice and legal system are separate issues, and I really don't get how you think they can be. The police are part of both of those systems, they're not separate. The police didn't find 'one weird trick' that allowed them to seize property. It was heavily championed by Reagan and his White House, and Bush senior and junior--and probably clinton--and you'll find legislators supporting it vocally these days. That it's an old law doesn't mean that the legislature couldn't change the law if they wanted to. And prosecutors benefit from asset forfeiture too. For one thing, it strips the defendants of assets they could use to defend themselves in the case. For another, prosecutors want convictions. Having highly-funded cops help them get convictions. Prosecutors like, and argue strongly for, the asset forfeiture program. So do legislators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What does this realistically, practically mean? How would the new culture of accountability take shape? Please note I'm not saying that idea is bad--it's basically what I want. But how do you do that, and do you agree that we need to reform the rest of the justice system in order to really reform cops? Well, there's 25 pages of discussion here about how to get it. I think most posters here agree that there should probably be civilian boards empowered to discipline or fire cops. At the very least, they shouldn't be relied on to police themselves. More training in deescalation techniques. Cops living the communities they serve. Strict limitations on the use of SWAT teams. Abolition of qualified and absolute immunity to civil litigation. Regular steroid testing. Lapel cams on all cops. All things that have been talked about. Actually, apart from the #NotAllCops interludes, I don't think there's been much disagreement about approaches at all. So here's a question to move this along. Given the "tough on crime!" ratcheting effect, how do we build the political will to get any of these things done? Obdicut posted:I don't agree that the justice and legal system are separate issues, and I really don't get how you think they can be. The police are part of both of those systems, they're not separate. Let me clarify. Certainly many problems in the justice, legal, and LE systems are interrelated, and there are many problems that involve the entire octopus. And nobody is saying that the rest shouldn't be reformed too. Prosecutorial misconduct needs to be, well, prosecuted. The war on drugs needs to go, as do mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, and for-profit entities involved at any point in the incarceration of people. But I think Eric Garner getting strangled to death for contempt of cop is squarely on the police here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Well, there's 25 pages of discussion here about how to get it. There's really not. There is very little discussion about actually how to reform police departments. quote:I think most posters here agree that there should probably be civilian boards empowered to discipline or fire cops. At the very least, they shouldn't be relied on to police themselves. More training in deescalation techniques. Cops living the communities they serve. Strict limitations on the use of SWAT teams. Abolition of qualified and absolute immunity to civil litigation. Regular steroid testing. Lapel cams on all cops. All things that have been talked about. The civilian boards in many places would simply rubber-stamp police decisions. There are places where cops do live in the communities they serve: are there substantial differences in policing techniques there? When you say limitations on the SWAT teams, do you mean self-imposed by the police, or a legal limit, imposed by law? Abolition of immunity--that would require legislative change. Lapel cameras will not solve the problem of favoritism towards cops by juries, and again would require legislative change. I think that all these particular things could effect local solutions in a few areas where there really is popular will to reign in the cops--like in Oakland or SF--but not in the majority of cities and definitely not in the majority of suburbs, where there isn't. quote:Actually, apart from the #NotAllCops interludes, I don't think there's been much disagreement about approaches at all. So here's a question to move this along. Given the "tough on crime!" ratcheting effect, how do we build the political will to get any of these things done? I think there's been mostly focus on what's wrong with cops, and not why cops are wrong, and therefore not how it can be fixed. I thought the stuff from the defense attorney way back when was interesting and cool, and that is exactly what I'm talking about : building political will. The main obstacle to that political will is the politicization of prosecutorial positions, and the bias towards prosecutors from judges. And both these things reflect, in a round-about way, a cultural viewpoint among voters. The hatred and contempt towards 'criminals' in this country is goddamn insane a lot of the time. Much of this, of course, is tied up in racism and classism and is an outflow of our society's general contempt for people on the bottom of the economic level. quote:Let me clarify. Certainly many problems in the justice, legal, and LE systems are interrelated, and there are many problems that involve the entire octopus. And nobody is saying that the rest shouldn't be reformed too. Prosecutorial misconduct needs to be, well, prosecuted. The war on drugs needs to go, as do mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, and for-profit entities involved at any point in the incarceration of people. I agree with that, though even without for-profit motives, the prison system would still suck. But it's not just that prosecutorial misconduct needs to be addressed, but that prosecutors get somewhere, politically, the more people they arrest and prosecute. Prosecutors don't get rewarded for exercising discretion and letting people go, or for developing programs that divert people away from courts or prison. quote:But I think Eric Garner getting strangled to death for contempt of cop is squarely on the police here. I don't. I think it's on a system where victimless low-level crimes like that are considered worth making an arrest for and not just handing out a ticket or something along those lines. I think if you prosecuted the hell out of each person involved with that death it would not really effect future outcomes that much at all, because deterrent doesn't really work for cops any more than it works for anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't. I think it's on a system where victimless low-level crimes like that are considered worth making an arrest for and not just handing out a ticket or something along those lines. I think if you prosecuted the hell out of each person involved with that death it would not really effect future outcomes that much at all, because deterrent doesn't really work for cops any more than it works for anyone else. It's loving textbook manslaughter, they didn't intend for him to die but he did, at best it's gross misconduct because that poo poo wouldn't fly in better countries. They escalated that situation needlessly and as a result a man is dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:It's loving textbook manslaughter, they didn't intend for him to die but he did, at best it's gross misconduct because that poo poo wouldn't fly in better countries. They escalated that situation needlessly and as a result a man is dead. And how can we prevent his from happening again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And how can we prevent his from happening again? How about not committing to pointless arrests? While he was clearly worked up the guy was not endangering anyone at the time they jumped him. He was violently forced to the ground by 5 (!!!) officers for not showing respect which is ludicrous. I mean according to the article all they wanted to arrest him for was breaking up a brawl which already seems strange. They seriously couldn't just have asked for his ID and told him to come to the police station later? Nothing about that situation seemed to need him immediately removed from the streets at any cost.  As for the actual reforms you keep saying aren't mentioned here increased oversight is key. The on-uniform cameras that have already been mentioned about 500 times in the thread and that are being tried in several states today are a perfect example of a tool that could rein in abuse by officers. It's cheap, easy to implement and highly effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:03
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And how can we prevent his from happening again? How do we deal with peasants committing manslaughter?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:09
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:How about not committing to pointless arrests? I absolutely think that's a good idea. So why do the police make pointless arrests? quote:As for the actual reforms you keep saying aren't mentioned here increased oversight is key. The on-uniform cameras that have already been mentioned about 500 times in the thread and that are being tried in several states today are a perfect example of a tool that could rein in abuse by officers. It's cheap, easy to implement and highly effective. Again, in many areas that oversight is not going to be effective because the oversight will rubber-stamp police abuses. How do we get an oversight committee that is actually stringent with the police and doesn't just sign off on their actions? I absolutely agree that on-uniform cameras are a good idea but they are hardly anything approaching a solution to the larger problems--like, for example, pointless arrests. GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:How do we deal with peasants committing manslaughter? Do you think the way we deal with 'peasants' committing manslaughter is effective?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:12
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you think the way we deal with 'peasants' committing manslaughter is effective? Do you think giving peasants the same treatment as the cops will improve things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:I absolutely think that's a good idea. So why do the police make pointless arrests? A combination of over-zealous police unions, career officers, "tough on crime" politicians, a focus on arrests in the stats, the for profit prison system and the inherit racial biases of most Americans. How about you actually contribute to the discussion instead of simply asking questions that have already been answered again and again in this very thread?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2014 12:19
|
|